The Iran Plans: Seymour Hersh's latest account of extensive Pentagon planning for war, even nuclear war, against Iran.

It is amusing to observe the disconnect in the following excerpt: "Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. “That’s the name they’re using. They say, ‘Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?’ ” "

As John Pilger has observed, the Bush Administration is the Third Reich of our time, and appeasement of US threats and aggression is the height of folly. It is Bush who is threatening nuclear war against Iran, threatening to start World War 111, but somehow this more or less obvious fact is not noticed by scores of journalists, politicians and commentators.

UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, to his credit, has publicly declared that a nuclear strike on Iran would be 'completely nuts.' An obvious question to ask Blair and Howard would therefore be Do they also consider a conventional or nuclear attack on Iran as inconceivable or 'nuts' and do they intent to convey that feeling to the US? Or do they intend to maintain the pattern of appeasement of US aggression even to the extent of nuclear warfare?

Jorge Hirsch has a typically even more alarming post about the likelihood of a nuclear attack against Iran: "If there is an aerial bombing of Iran, I believe it is inevitable it will go nuclear.... I believe President Bush has embraced the breaking of the 60-year old taboo against the use of nuclear weapons as his personal goal ... The President has sole authority to order the use of nuclear weapons, Congress has no say. The chain of command doesn't go through the Joint Chiefs of Staff that may oppose it as Hersh mentions: it goes directly from Bush and Rumsfeld to commanders of the Unified Combatant Commands such as Gen. Abizaid and Gen. Cartwright. Unless those individuals disobey orders, there is no way to stop it.... Iran will respond to a conventional attack with conventional weapons (eg missiles) and will not be deterred by a US nuclear threat from doing so. The US will use nuclear weapons against Iran because certain sectors of the American establishment, that are in power now, believe it is in the long term strategic interest of the US to do so.... no US military power will be able to contain the chaos and asymmetrical warfare that will engulf the region after the US attacks Iran."

The Iran Plans: Seymour Hersh's latest account of extensive Pentagon planning for war, even nuclear war, against Iran.

It is amusing to observe the disconnect in the following excerpt: "Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. “That’s the name they’re using. They say, ‘Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?’ ” "

As John Pilger has observed, the Bush Administration is the Third Reich of our time, and appeasement of US threats and aggression is the height of folly. It is Bush who is threatening nuclear war against Iran, threatening to start World War 111, but somehow this more or less obvious fact is not noticed by scores of journalists, politicians and commentators.

UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, to his credit, has publicly declared that a nuclear strike on Iran would be 'completely nuts.' An obvious question to ask Blair and Howard would therefore be Do they also consider a conventional or nuclear attack on Iran as inconceivable or 'nuts' and do they intent to convey that feeling to the US? Or do they intend to maintain the pattern of appeasement of US aggression even to the extent of nuclear warfare?

Jorge Hirsch has a typically even more alarming post about the likelihood of a nuclear attack against Iran: "If there is an aerial bombing of Iran, I believe it is inevitable it will go nuclear.... I believe President Bush has embraced the breaking of the 60-year old taboo against the use of nuclear weapons as his personal goal ... The President has sole authority to order the use of nuclear weapons, Congress has no say. The chain of command doesn't go through the Joint Chiefs of Staff that may oppose it as Hersh mentions: it goes directly from Bush and Rumsfeld to commanders of the Unified Combatant Commands such as Gen. Abizaid and Gen. Cartwright. Unless those individuals disobey orders, there is no way to stop it.... Iran will respond to a conventional attack with conventional weapons (eg missiles) and will not be deterred by a US nuclear threat from doing so. The US will use nuclear weapons against Iran because certain sectors of the American establishment, that are in power now, believe it is in the long term strategic interest of the US to do so.... no US military power will be able to contain the chaos and asymmetrical warfare that will engulf the region after the US attacks Iran."